Abortion

Scott said:
As to what can be said, I have no control over that.
Click to expand...
Nice pivot. At issue is your control over your participation in a civil discussion, or your EVASION of same. You refuse to participate when you don't get to control the conversation and control what is said because your position is indefensible. If you are required to defend your indefensible position, i.e. to do the impossible, you EVADE.

Yes, you have complete control over your EVASION.

Scott said:
What I -do- have control over is on how I define words.
Click to expand...
... which amounts to EVASION. I bet you wouldn't engage in such EVASION if we were discussing your favorite foods (which *are* entirely subjective).
 
Scott said:
I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
Click to expand...
And terminating a life, (abortion) is a very serious thing, so you better have a very compelling reason for allowing some people to do it and I don't think, because its inconvenient, isnt a very compelling reason
 
Scott said:
I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
Click to expand...
You haven't explained your omission of urine and feces, other excretions of the body.
 
Scott said:
Not, it wasn't. For the audience, my assertion was that "I have yet to find a definition for "living human" in any dictionary or encyclopedia."
Click to expand...
So it's ok to terminate a life because you can't find a definition? See gfm7175 this is the type of silly nonsense this clown is playing with.
 
Scott said:
True. The problem arises when the person you're discussing something with doesn't agree with the definitions you use. I like dictionaries because they are generally seen as neutral ground- they also try to use neutral words.
Click to expand...
Dictionaries are written by people, people who are NOT "neutral".

In fact, YOU'RE IN LUCK! I've actually just wrapped up my work of writing a dictionary. It's in my publisher's hands atm, but it'll soon be publicly available for your own perusal. It happens to have an entry within it for the term 'living human', and that definition reads: "homo sapien with a heartbeat".

I'm now going to call up my publisher so that you and I can get onto "neutral ground" with "neutral words" asap.
Scott said:
An example would be a definition of an abortion that states that it is the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman, causing the death of the fetus. No one would disagree with that definition as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Well, "a fetus" is more specifically referring to an unborn child (a living human), "a pregnant woman" is more specifically referring to that child's mother, and "causing the death of the fetus" is more specifically referring to the mother contracting the killing of her child (and the disposal of the child's body) with a professional killer (a "doctor").

Why not make use of more precise language? Why not say what you really mean and mean what you really say?
Scott said:
People -would- disagree with defining an abortion as a killing or a contract killing,
Click to expand...
Well, sure, if those people choose to set aside all rationale by rejecting set theory.
Scott said:
and I strongly suspect that's why they don't use such a definition.
Click to expand...
and I strongly suspect that they're purposely EVADING precise language, just like you are.
 
Yakuda said:
And terminating a life, (abortion) is a very serious thing, so you better have a very compelling reason for allowing some people to do it and I don't think, because its inconvenient, isnt a very compelling reason
Click to expand...
Terminating a life after certain timeframe is already illegal. Dr. Gosnell is in prison.
 
gfm7175 said:
Dictionaries are written by people, people who are NOT "neutral".
Click to expand...
:cruisewhat:
gfm7175 said:
In fact, YOU'RE IN LUCK! I've actually just wrapped up my work of writing a dictionary. It's in my publisher's hands atm, but it'll soon be publicly available for your own perusal. It happens to have an entry within it for the term 'living human', and that definition reads: "homo sapien with a heartbeat".
Click to expand...
:rofl2:
gfm7175 said:
I'm now going to call up my publisher so that you and I can get onto "neutral ground" with "neutral words" asap.
Click to expand...
:rofl2:
gfm7175 said:
Well, "a fetus" is more specifically referring to an unborn child (a living human), "a pregnant woman" is more specifically referring to that child's mother, and "causing the death of the fetus" is more specifically referring to the mother contracting the killing of her child (and the disposal of the child's body) with a professional killer (a "doctor").
Click to expand...
You're babbling. Perhaps your neutral "dictionary" will help you?
gfm7175 said:
Why not make use of more precise language? Why not say what you really mean and mean what you really say?
Click to expand...
Contract killing is illegal.
gfm7175 said:
Well, sure, if those people choose to set aside all rationale by rejecting set theory.
Click to expand...
Abortion is not a set theory.
gfm7175 said:
and I strongly suspect that they're purposely EVADING precise language, just like you are.
Click to expand...
You're the one who want to create a new dictionary. :rofl2:
 
Scott said:
There is no requirement for living things to have heartbeats, so I see no logical reason why the definition of the compound term "living human" needs to include a heartbeat. The only thing that I think is required is that it be a stage of the development of a human being.
Click to expand...
In that case, under YOUR OWN framework, a sperm still isn't a "living human". A sperm, in and of itself, will only ever be a sperm, nothing more. It never goes through any stages of human development.
Scott said:
I find your statement somewhat misleading.
Click to expand...
I find his statement entirely accurate.
Scott said:
I think a more accurate description is that the male sperm's DNA is combined with the female's egg DNA and that together, they create a fertilized egg, also known as a zygote.
Click to expand...
... and the DNA of that zygote differs from the DNA of that sperm, correct? Ergo, IBD's statement was entirely accurate.
 
Scott said:
I've already done what I wished to do- I define the compound term 'living human' to include all stages of human development, from the sperm and egg to elderly citizens.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your definition is in error. Neither sperm nor egg are "stages of human development".

Human development doesn't occur until "a zygote" has been formed. A living human who is in the very first "zygote" stage of human development, will always subsequently continue to develop into the embryonic stage, the fetal stage, the newborn stage, etc etc etc, until the very moment of that living human's death, whenever that moment may be.

In and of itself, a sperm will always be a sperm and an egg will always be an egg (neither, on their own, will ever develop into anything else). There is no living human present until the very first "zygote" stage of human development has occurred. The DNA of the zygote (46 chromosomes) differs from both the DNA of the sperm (23 chromosomes) and the DNA of the egg (also 23 chromosomes).

I'll now try to simplify this concept even further for you... Hopefully @IBDaMann doesn't fault me too bad for this simplification being technically incorrect, which includes my usage of numbers rather than letters:

SPERM DNA = 123
EGG DNA = 456
ZYGOTE DNA = 123456

123 is not 456 is not 123456. None of them are the same. They are ALL different from each other. '123' does NOT go through any stages of human development. '456' does NOT go through any stages of human development either. ONLY '123456' goes through stages of human development. ONLY '123456' is a living human.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top